obelisk_

Well, what are the alternatives?

Hosted: Bitbucket, GitLab

Self-hosted: GitLab, Gogs

None of these come close to GitHub in my experience.

>This is pretty disgusting because engineer man is a good guy and main guy has an underage girlfriend living in a plywood loft built inside a storage unit. One day engineer man says "fuck this I'm going to be a fucking farmer now".

If engineer man does that, then he is not a good guy.

If engineer man does that, then he is a scummy asshole.

This. Please rename the project.

I've been wanting tape backup for home use for a couple of years now but haven't been able to afford any yet. I recently bought a new battery and some new casette tapes for my old digital camcorder. Just now I came to think, perhaps I can put backups on these tapes? I did an internet search and found this. I have not yet had a chance to test the tools mentioned in this article since my current desktop computer is lacking any firewire ports.

It is not advisible to have this as the primary method of backup but I found it interesting still and will personally be doing this in the future just for the fun of it.

The www serves as a clue that it's a URL. Most people would recognize example.com as a domain even if given no other context. Contrast that with example.design. I think to most, www.example.design would be more recognizable.

I tried to use node on a $5 DigitalOcean dropplet a couple of times but whenever I tried to run npm to install something, it would run out of memory and be killed. Frustrated with this experience, I have stayed away from Node.

IMO, 50 000 subscribers is about the tipping point for subreddit quality. Beyond that number things start to go down hill real fast. You also don't want too few subscribers, however, or there will be too little new content posted. At about 10 000 subscribers, the amount of posts should be high enough that there's always something to see.

Even worse yet is when people do

    if some_function(arg, arg2):
        result = True
    else:
        result = False

    return result

Obviously a waste of time and lines of code. Instead, do

    return some_function(arg, arg2)

Unless anything else needs to be done with the result of some_function but that's not the case I'm talking about, I'm talking about when it looks like above.

In the specific case of crypto, maybe they are concerned about leaking information through timing if they return early? Though even if you have only one exit point, that alone does not in any way guarantee that timing differences won't occur. For that, I think the same work must be done always and only at the very end it is decided whether or not the result is valid. Something like that. So maybe they have some other reason. Maybe it's just cargo cult programming.

I am generally not a fan of analogies but I think yours is a good one.

Identity theft would be my guess.

I have never really considered repeating conditions instead of nesting. I might try doing so next time since I'm generally not happy with the depth of nesting I sometimes land myself in.

The problem I foresee with repeat conditions is that during a change, I might forget to update one or more of the repeat conditions.

Also, I wonder, do gcc and/or clang recognize repeat conditions and produce the equivalent of what nested statements would?

Huh, TIL. I always assumed that they meant that the errors themselves are unicorns because they rarely happen and even when they do, you usually don't see them.

Excellent.

We'll settle on the second, then.

They look the best as you said and they are also the ones that ∗didn't∗ mess with apparent line spacing.

Regarding messing with people, use the browser dev tools to replace them with the italics open and end tags, then screenshot the result and say to people, "what are you talking about? looks fine to me" and link said screenshot. I'm affraid our scheme will soon be thwarted by other HNers though who will jump in to say "yeah, I see asterisk as well" and then someone else will say "they are using a different unicode character".

We could use ﹡these﹡ instead. U+FE61, small asterisk.

We could use ∗these∗ instead. U+2217, asterisk operator.

Interestingly, U+2731, heavy asterisk, is stripped by HN it seems.

But to be honest, none of them feel the same as the one true *. I looked at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicode_subscripts_and_supersc... hoping there was a way to elevate and scale down a character by some special code to make it look like a regular asterisk but didn't see any. Also, with unusual code points, font support is generally lacking so to some readers of HN, the above mentioned variations will probably render as something such as just squares. Furthermore, one of those I used above mess with apparent line spacing for me.